Well, there was a game I played (its still there, but its been dead a while. A few people check in now and again.) that was similar to this. It was a medieval setting type.... and battles were done in a way like this. Attacker: Attacking from city a to city b.
Units attacking with: 3 X units, 2 Y units, 1 Z unit.
Cost: Blah (money was given every week based on the amount of towns you controlled, and you bought armies and moved them using this weekly allowance.)
Defender had 1 week to respond. If Defending, post was made.
Defending City B. (if applicable) Renforcments from city C.
Units: 3x, 2y from city b, 1 z from city c.
Cost: Unit costs for movements ect.
Defender then put a small description of what the terrain was like, sometimes troop locations and formation. But mostly, just the terrain the defense was setting up at.
Now, the attacker makes a post, usually consisting of leaders talking tactics, some RP, troop movements and stratagy.
Defense makes a similar post
Attacker makes a post around the defenders post
Defender makes a post around attackers post....
Now, for normal battles, that was it. The battle was now ready to be judged, and was judged by three people. Usually mods, but not always.
The judgement was based on:
Post Content (How well you posted in general.)
Fairness (How well your playing casualtys, ect.)
Troop Number comparison (and troop quality)
Now, little things come into play, like grammar and tactics and such. Each judge breaks down their ruling, and sends it off to the third judge who does the same. At this point, that judge makes the final call, based on both reviews and his own, how the battle plays out. Now, for a few big battles, the judges made their review on the battle public, so that the players saw how they were judged. But most of the time, at the end of the 'gm conclusion post' (What happens during the battle, who is victory, and what units were lost) there is a small segment with brief parts to it.
